Question for the lawyers - 2257 and nude "Art"

[Hammer]

Alex makes a good point, but as far as 2257 goes, no, Metart is not exempt. Although they may not have hardcore sex images, many of their images are clearly explicit as defined by the law. "Lascivious displays of the genitals" clearly covers much of their content where you can see the model's vagina. A good lawyer could even make a case that a chick with panties on but showing cameltoe would be a sexually explicit display of the genitals.

[gonzo]

Im not a lawyer but heres my thoughts.

Every shoot Ive done you get a release a copy of the idea regardless of the level of content.

When I shot for Homegrown they also had the model read a statement before each video.

[RawAlex]

I remember one guy I lent a hotel room to at a show to shoot in had the girl read a little bit of the model release, hold the cash up for the camera, say she had fun, that she had a good time, that she knew everything that was going to happen and she had agreed to all of it, today's front page of the newspaper, etc. It's pretty hard for a girl to get model's remorse and then have to answer for that in court.

[WebBilling.com]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

I remember one guy I lent a hotel room to at a show to shoot in had the girl read a little bit of the model release, hold the cash up for the camera, say she had fun, that she had a good time, that she knew everything that was going to happen and she had agreed to all of it, today's front page of the newspaper, etc. It's pretty hard for a girl to get model's remorse and then have to answer for that in court.

Sounds like that pretty much covers it...

[KevinG]

Thanks for the responses guys.

I already knew the answer, but needed to get other unbiased opinions to show to a client that was believing what Met Art said.

[pornlaw]

Without actually reviewing the site, I cannot really state whether they are exempt or not. But I know Jeffrey Douglas and I know he is a well versed and well prepared attorney.

I would not expect him to lend his name to such a public statement unless he was sure (as much as a lawyer could be) that the site was exempt.

That's really sticking your proverbial neck out for a client. I dont think Jeff would do that without the facts backing him up.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

[Greg B]

This is why I stick to toons. Nobody cards a toon nor needs documents to prove it's age.

No labor forms or problems either although they do take out that occasional ACME product that backfires now and then.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Without actually reviewing the site, I cannot really state whether they are exempt or not. But I know Jeffrey Douglas and I know he is a well versed and well prepared attorney.

I would not expect him to lend his name to such a public statement unless he was sure (as much as a lawyer could be) that the site was exempt.

That's really sticking your proverbial neck out for a client. I dont think Jeff would do that without the facts backing him up.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

There are two possiblities: 1) that Mr Douglas didn't ever truly express an opinion, or 2) he was presented content without context, without explaining how the marketing would be done, etc.

Further, that notice has been on that site for quite a long time, and since then there has been changes in the definitions for 2257 requirements, rulings regarding certain clothed video still being porn, etc.

Times change. One lawyer consultation 7 or 8 years ago doesn't make you safe.